The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.PregnancyJourneysAfterLoss.com[edit]

Seems promotion for a web site whose aim seems to be promotion of a book. I am unaware that the book or the website are notable either in their own right or have been cited by other suitable sources. David Ruben ^Talk 18:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just an advertisement for a book. ... discospinster 20:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of this compilation. The book has just been published and is being promoted. Families need support. The book is endorsed by leaders in the field: Ann Douglas, Michael Berman, MD, Michael Nettleton and Sherokee Ilse. It is currently being reviewed by PLIDA, A TIME, A Place to Remember, The Centering Corporation for inclusion on their websites, resource lists and catalogs. I am credentialled as a health educator, have testified in Washington DC on behalf of the First Candle/SIDS Alliance, and consider this book to be a useful tool to any parent facing pregnancy loss AND pregnancy after loss. Please reconsider.Elovesme99

• Delete. If the book is being promoted, wait until the press picks it up. Don't promote it here, and don't linkspam. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childless Mother. Melchoir 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN website. --Hyperbole 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I did this wrong. Feel free to delete. Elovesme99

Explain why it is a linkspam to list a site of support, information and education? I see there are other sites as such, also who promote and sell things, so I am unclear on what is acceptable. I was followng what others have done. Elovesme99

The spaming is the process of linking to a site/book/article/organisation that one is personally involved in or of providing a link that promotes a site, not whether or not the item is worthy in its own right. The support group would be appropriate to refer to if reliable 3rd parties have indicated its notability, and one can thus cite that source to verify the assertion of a site being notable and thus worthy of inclusion. A link to Ford Motor Company is pemitted because the company is notable and one can cite newspapers announcing their first construction of cars using assembly line techniques, dominance in car sales etc to verify this claim. My local garage might be unusally cheep and efficient, but having no sources to cite that this is the case, it will never have an article about it, nor a link to its welcoming website. I'm sure the boundaries of wikipolicies are hard to define and judgement needs be used on a case-by case basis. Equally I'm sure some articles have been less well checked for adhering to policies than others - hopefully in time all articles will be of consistant standards. If you encounter obvious breaches, then just as any user, you may edit that part of an article, raise a discussion on its talk page or nominate the whole article as failling to meet wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I agree there are quite a lot of polices to become familiar with, so observe how other discussions discuss these or related topics and feel free to continue asking questions :-) David Ruben ^Talk 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede as it's obvious I've made some mistakes. I hope judgement on the part of the Wiki-ers improves over time and that people who make suggestions about deleting something might be credentialled, or at the very least, would have experienced something to know about it. I would never write about having a vasectomy because it's not something I have or can experience. I appreciate Dr. Rubens and the administrators remarks on how to do things and how to improve the article/website etc for inclusion on Wiki, but some of the other people really shouldn't preach what they cannot practice. Elovesme99

Comment. That is all irrelevant. The article is an advertisement and does not belong here. ... discospinster 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.